Merged Is ufology a pseudoscience?

[23_Tauri]

Sorry, you're now talking about situations, not conditions. What if someone were taking an opticians test whilst travelling very fast in the air in a metal tube with wings, whilst under stress of potential combat? That would then show "what conditions your vision becomes uncertain"... but that would only be relevant if you where chasing a giant alphabet based lifeform across the skies.

I take it that'll be the Flying Alphabetti Spaghetti Monster.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

So, we've clearly established that:

1) There is no remotely conclusive evidence of an alien or paranormal origin to any of thousands of UFO cases

2) Ufology is a pseudoscience

3) There is no understanding, let alone use, of critical thinking in ufology

Can we move on to thread number four, now?

 

[Pixel42]

How can the pilot know the distance to an unknown object?

No matter how many times the impossibility of this is pointed out, ufology persists in making this elementary mistake.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No matter how many times the impossibility of this is pointed out, ufology persists in making this elementary mistake.

Was it in the same post where it was explained to him why anecdotes are useless for validating extraordinary claims?

 

[ufology]

I don't see them as nitpicky ...

... and I can claim there is no such thing as conditions in which mistakes can not be made as is shown by the amount of various mistakes being made all over the world in all different types of conditions. clear weather, rainy weather, wet and dry, hot, cold, foggy, indoors, outdoors, in space, in combat, in peace etc.

Sorry, you haven't demonstrated that he is immune from misperception/human fallibility yet... nor that he'd recently had his eyes tested whilst in the cockpit.

Since you don't see them as nitpicky ... you have changed the parameters of your initial objection. Which was "there is no sich thing as unmistakeable conditions", by adding further conditions in an attempt to reinforce your position. To Quote:

There is no need for anyone to explain a story told by a pilot.
The fact that you ackowledge that pilots make mistakes means you now have to comprehensively rule out that possibility. Preferably using more than just your subjectively motivated "judge of someone's character" ability.

There is no such thing as "unmistakable conditions".

But even if we let that issue go a little and focus briefly on the other points. Pilots do have their ability to function under stress tested, and while under stress, and regularly, and there was a follow up investigation. The pilot was not relieved of duty for any misconduct or physical or mental or emotional problems.

Returning to the point about anedotes in medical case studies being "a whole other kettle of fish". This assertion is nothing more than a dodge. My response was to a post that contended that all anecdotal evidence is useless. Clearly it's not, so now you seek to change the parameters. GeeMack had a term for it ... The No True Scotsman tactic.

j.r.

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Anecdotal evidence in medical research is a part of a double blind process, pitted against placebo. It is not acceptable evidence on its own. Otherwise chiropractics, acupuncture and homeopathy would be real sciences.

Bonus OT opinion: You were never on an alien spaceship and did not have an OBE.

Anecdotal evidence is useless in medecine also. Patient reports, when weighed against a true null hypothesis, against placebo, and within a double blind process, are hardly "anecdotal". Give me a break.

 

[RoboTimbo]

ufology, you never answered this. I'm sure it was just an oversight on your part but if you are sincere about your zeal to think critically, it's important to make sure we explore everything in depth.

On anecdotal ... you are using a generic presumed usage. I use one that accepts firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation as not being anecdotal as in the following definition from Encarta:

Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999,2000 Microsoft Corporation.

an·ec·dot·al [ànn?k d?t’l] or an·ec·dot·ic [ànn?k d?tik] adjective
1. based on anecdotes or hearsay: consisting of or based on secondhand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation.

So, to the pilot it's firsthand. To you and me it's anecdotal and useless.

I've also pointed out the value of quality anecdotal evidence in the pursuit of science ( medical case studies ), for which anecdotal evidence is the norm. So even if you reject the Enacarta definition, you can still find evidence for anecdotal evidence being used to further our knowledge and understanding, and contribute insight for progress where hard science is concerned.

And it was those medical studies that we weren't going to compare to because you're comparing apples and oranges, as was explained to you upthread.

For the radar return from the object the jet was chasing, the radar is what alerted the base to the presence of an unknown target. Jets were scrambled, but before the jets made visual confirmation, the object faded off the radar. This was an early radar system, so they didn't know if the UFO had faded up out of range, or gone "under the radar". So they started the search high, then moved down, ( this is logical as it allowed the pilots to either intercept or gain the high ground right away. If it was below, then they had the "upper advantage" ... which is how it turned out ... ).

So, that's a no, the object that the pilot claims to have seen did not appear on radar.

Were you conflating the two? The earlier radar return and the later claimed sighting by the pilot? It's very easy to do when you aren't thinking critically. Fortunately we are thinking critically so the two are separate and distinct.

As the search progressed to lower altitudes, one of the pilots spotted the object below the radar and took up pursuit by going into a dive. So there was a short period of time between the radar contact and visual confirmation.

Exactly! Can you see how other people would merge the two events together in their mind and relate them erroneously?

Although the gap between the radar contact and visual confirmation existed, the two actions are so closely connected, and the flight characteristics of the UFO spotted so similar to the initial radar returns, that it is reasonable to assume that the UFO was the same object that was initially tracked on radar a few minites before.

Yes, I guess you can see how they would erroneously do that. So, you've decided to not apply critical thinking skills here?

NOTE: Consider the term "visual confirmation". Why do you hear that term used? Might I propose that it's because visual confirmation verifies the radar? What does this imply about the data provided by radar compared to data provided directly by a pilot in visual range? Certainly we can see that it has value ... moreso than the radar data alone.

j.r.

But he didn't have a sighting on a radar target. Do you see the difference?

So there was nothing on radar to confirm what the pilot reported seeing?

 

[Astrophotographer]

So there was nothing on radar to confirm what the pilot reported seeing?

Actually, the story was told second hand to Ruppelt, who repeated it in his book. There are no records of the event and we can not pursue details beyond what he wrote. It is one of those anecdotal stories that nobody can verify as having actually happened as described.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Actually, the story was told second hand to Ruppelt, who repeated it in his book. There are no records of the event and we can not pursue details beyond what he wrote. It is one of those anecdotal stories that nobody can verify as having actually happened as described.

All this excitement over nothing. I had only read ufology's post about it, I hadn't searched for any links to it yet.

 

[John Albert]

On anecdotal ... you are using a generic presumed usage. I use one that accepts firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation as not being anecdotal...

You keep trying to redefine the definitions of words to bolster your argument. That is a dishonest debate tactic, and also a recognized logical fallacy called (not surprisingly) "redefinition." Using it one-sidedly as you're doing to bolster your argument in the middle of a debate already in progress, is also an example of "moving the goalposts."

...the following definition from Encarta:

Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999,2000 Microsoft Corporation.

an·ec·dot·al [ànn?k d?t’l] or an·ec·dot·ic [ànn?k d?tik] adjective
1. based on anecdotes or hearsay: consisting of or based on secondhand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation.

You're misinterpreting that definition to make it support your argument.

"Firsthand knowledge" alone is not anecdotal until the person with that knowledge relates it to another; it is the act of telling someone else that makes it anecdotal. As soon as somebody tells their firsthand knowledge to a second party, it's no longer firsthand, it becomes anecdotal.

Note that the Encarta definition you cited makes a clear distinction between anecdotes and "firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation."

I've also pointed out the value of quality anecdotal evidence in the pursuit of science ( medical case studies ), for which anecdotal evidence is the norm.

As I already pointed out back on page 4, you're wrong about that, too.

Medical case reporting is irrelevant to this discussion. Real medical doctors do not use anecdotal evidence as the sole criteria for making a diagnosis. At most, it's used as a jumping-off point for narrowing down the patient's condition to a number of possible ailments already known to exist through scientific process.

The anecdotal evidence of doctor's notes in medical case studies serve to provide insight into that physician's method of reasoning in pursuing a diagnosis and a subsequent course of action for future doctors to reference. In no way is it meant as a substitute for objective scientific methodology in the diagnosis or treatment.

As long as you keep ignoring my posts and promoting the same fallacious lines of reasoning, I will continue to reiterate the same admonitions again and again.

 

[ufology]

Hey Robo ... I couldn't get all your quotes to re-quote to answer them all in order but I'll try here.

Regarding anecdotal evidence. Yes you are correct when you say that to the pilot it was firsthand and to us it is anecdotal. However I've also said that there is value in anecdotal evidence.

In a response to the claim that all anecdotal evidence is useless, I showed that some is useful and gave the medical case studies example. Clearly not all anecdotal evidence is useless. Therefore to change the parameters to nullify my point is what GeeMack alerted me to as the "No True Scotsman" tactic.

So clearly if some anecdotal evidence is useful in one application, perhaps it can also be useful elsewhere as well. We don't have to compare medical case studies to UFO reports specifically ... just find some logic to support their usefulness.

In this case the firsthand report of the pilot was turned ( by him ) into his report immediately after the incident. This report is no more anecdotal evidence than the report a scientist would make after an experiment. That report was then investigated and compared with the other factors of the case. Now not only do we have the firsthand evidence in the form of a record, we have also enhanced it through independent investigation. If those results are passed along to us, sure they are anecdotal, but they aren't useless.

Regarding the radar contact and the visual contact. We cannot conclude that the object spotted on radar was not the same object spotted by the pilot. We can however conclude with reasonable certaintly that it was. The factors in support of that are the short duration between loss of radar contact and the pilot's visual confirmation, coupled with similar performance characteristics of the object being chased, most notably the speed and last known position of the object which was either above or below radar range at the distance it was spotted at.

j.r.

 

[Astrophotographer]

All this excitement over nothing. I had only read ufology's post about it, I hadn't searched for any links to it yet.

Very little to look for. I think the only thing somebody discovered was that the location was Albuquerque NM based on some of Ruppelt's notes for writing his book. I am not saying that Ruppelt made all this up. However, because this story was being told after going through two individuals from the original source (pilot - intelligence officer - Ruppelt) and the story was apparently based on his notes/memories of the story, we really can't take what was described as being 100% accurate. The pilot (to the best of my knowledge) never stepped forward with his story. As a result, we can send this story to the "So what" bin. It has just as much value as any other anecdotal story. BTW, I still think Navy pilots are far superior to AF ones.

 

[John Albert]

Returning to the point about anedotes in medical case studies being "a whole other kettle of fish". This assertion is nothing more than a dodge. My response was to a post that contended that all anecdotal evidence is useless. Clearly it's not, so now you seek to change the parameters.

This is also wrong. You're the one changing the parameters, Googling for alternate definitions with wording that you can easily misinterpret to support your faulty position. As I and others have pointed out, medical case studies do not rely solely on anecdotal evidence. The anecdotes in case studies are intended to support—not replace—actual, objective scientific data.

GeeMack had a term for it ... The No True Scotsman tactic.

You clearly don't understand what is meant by the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Why don't you look it up?

"No True Scotsman" refers to a subjective opinion based on misplaced faith in an archetype, and the argument that any individual fitting that archetype who engages in an ideology or behavior that one disagrees with is not a "true" example of that archetype.

Here's an example:

"Ufologists reject the psycho-social hypothesis. There's no denying that UFOs are real."

"David Clarke is a ufologist who believes in the PSH."

"Well, David Clarke is not a real ufologist."


It has nothing to do with refuting the misapplication of a particular methodology in support of one's argument.

The anecdotes in medical case studies are reports of observations regarding conditions already established by science as being real (and usually accompanied by scientific, clinical data supporting the observation). They are therefore completely irrelevant to the question of anecdotes supporting UFOs as paranormal aircraft, something which has never been objectively proven to exist.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hey Robo ... I couldn't get all your quotes to re-quote to answer them all in order but I'll try here.

Regarding anecdotal evidence. Yes you are correct when you say that to the pilot it was firsthand and to us it is anecdotal. However I've also said that there is value in anecdotal evidence.

But it does no good, you saying it. Anecdotes are useless for validating extraordinary claims.

In a response to the claim that all anecdotal evidence is useless, I showed that some is useful and gave the medical case studies example. Clearly not all anecdotal evidence is useless. Therefore to change the parameters to nullify my point is what GeeMack alerted me to as the "No True Scotsman" tactic.

So clearly if some anecdotal evidence is useful in one application, perhaps it can also be useful elsewhere as well. We don't have to compare medical case studies to UFO reports specifically ... just find some logic to support their usefulness.

Yes, anecdotal evidence is used in medical case studies. Not very useful for our discussion at hand, though.

In this case the firsthand report of the pilot was turned ( by him ) into his report immediately after the incident. This report is no more anecdotal evidence than the report a scientist would make after an experiment. That report was then investigated and compared with the other factors of the case. Now not only do we have the firsthand evidence in the form of a record, we have also enhanced it through independent investigation. If those results are passed along to us, sure they are anecdotal, but they aren't useless.

Looking at what Astrophotographer has posted while I'm posting this, I'm going with "So what?" I will caution you against referring to this as firsthand when it is clearly very far removed from firsthand. I also caution you to continue to read AstroP's posts.

Regarding the radar contact and the visual contact. We cannot conclude that the object spotted on radar was not the same object spotted by the pilot. We can however conclude with reasonable certaintly that it was. The factors in support of that are the short duration between loss of radar contact and the pilot's visual confirmation, coupled with similar performance characteristics of the object being chased, most notably the speed and last known position of the object which was either above or below radar range at the distance it was spotted at.

j.r.

The bolded is an odd way of phrasing it. Almost as if you've started with your conclusion that there was something. Using a skeptical mindset you would have seen the error of correlating the earlier alleged radar return with the later alleged sighting. Instead you reach the conclusion that they were the same object.

Still going with what AstroP said, "So what?"

 

[ufology]

Very little to look for. I think the only thing somebody discovered was that the location was Albuquerque NM based on some of Ruppelt's notes for writing his book. I am not saying that Ruppelt made all this up. However, because this story was being told after going through two individuals from the original source (pilot - intelligence officer - Ruppelt) and the story was apparently based on his notes/memories of the story, we really can't take what was described as being 100% accurate. The pilot (to the best of my knowledge) never stepped forward with his story. As a result, we can send this story to the "So what" bin. It has just as much value as any other anecdotal story. BTW, I still think Navy pilots are far superior to AF ones.

Ruppelt himself saw the entire report firsthand and made notes directly from it. Ruppelt as you know was head of the USAF investigative team at the time, not some quack. Here are his own thoughts and what what happened to the firsthand report.

===================

When I finished reading, the intelligence officer's first comment was, "What do you think?"
Since the evaluation of the report seemed to hinge upon conflicts between personalities I didn't know, I could venture no opinion, except that the incident made up the most fascinating UFO report I'd ever seen. So I batted the intelligence officer's question back to him.
"I know the people involved," he replied, "and I don't think the pilot was nuts. I can't give you the report, because Colonel ------ told me to destroy it. But I did think you should know about it." Later he burned the report.
==================

This is hardly a "So what bin" case. Not only was there firsthand evidence that was seen by a USAF officer in charge of investigations, the evidence was also ordered destroyed by higher ranks. Ruppelt was never supposed to have seen it in the first place. Which lends credibility to the assertions that reports were actually being diverted away from Project Bluebook and covered up.

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

Hey Robo ... I couldn't get all your quotes to re-quote to answer them all in order but I'll try here.

Regarding anecdotal evidence. Yes you are correct when you say that to the pilot it was firsthand and to us it is anecdotal.

But it does no good, you saying it. Anecdotes are useless for validating extraordinary claims.

Whatever happened to the pilot was firsthand experience. Whatever story the pilot personally told to his superior officer, a reporter, UFO researchers, etc. is an anecdote. The story you are relating to us is that anecdote once-removed, a.k.a. hearsay.

It's like saying, "my cousin's friend told my cousin, who told me." It's no more scientific than any run-of-the-mill urban legend. That's why anecdotes are useless as evidence.

 

[ufology]

The bolded is an odd way of phrasing it. Almost as if you've started with your conclusion that there was something. Using a skeptical mindset you would have seen the error of correlating the earlier alleged radar return with the later alleged sighting. Instead you reach the conclusion that they were the same object.

The bolded part you mentioned was in respose to a sentence suggesting that the UFO spotted by the pilot wasn't the same one tracked on radar. So again, we have no way of proving it wasn't, only information to reasonably conclude that it was ... as was then posted.

j.r.

 

[John Albert]

"You can't prove it wasn't, therefore it was," is an argument from ignorance. Look it up.

This entire incident can be reasonably explained by a simple case of misidentification, a.k.a. human error on the part of one or more individuals. There's no compelling reason to jump to the conclusion of paranormal aircraft.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The bolded part you mentioned was in respose to a sentence suggesting that the UFO spotted by the pilot wasn't the same one tracked on radar. So again, we have no way of proving it wasn't, only information to reasonably conclude that it was ... as was then posted.

j.r.

Then you've abandoned critical thinking again. Why did you start this thread with the title you chose? You are allowing your personal bias to color your assessment. Try to look at it dispassionately. There was (assuming for the sake of argument) a radar return earlier. There was (assuming again) a pilot claiming to sight something later but the something didn't show up on radar.

The two events (assuming they happened) are separate events. You can want them to be the same thing so that your conclusion will follow. But that isn't critical thinking.

 

[ufology]

Whatever happened to the pilot was firsthand experience. Whatever story the pilot personally told to his superior officer, a reporter, UFO researchers, etc. is an anecdote. The story you are relating to us is that anecdote once-removed, a.k.a. hearsay.

It's like saying, "my cousin's friend told my cousin, who told me." It's no more scientific than any run-of-the-mill urban legend. That's why anecdotes are useless as evidence.

Whatever happened to the pilot was firsthand experience ( agreed ). Which means his report is also firsthand experience.
After that it is a story repeated, probably with good consistency regarding the essential facts. You can read the story yourself in the USAF officer's own words.

In the end I readily accept that the information provided on this forum is anecdotal. But I'm not saying that I'm presenting "proof" in this discussion. I am saying that the essential information, ( In 1952 a USAF F-86 jet intercepted a flying saucer during the daytime and the pilot clearly saw it ) is believable, regardles of it being anecdotal. Did I forget to mention the pilot also fired on it with his guns?

Here's a picture of an F-86:

Cool little jet for them days ...

j.r.